The ethics of Hiroshima

[Wokko]

Or you know, America could have accepted the surrender terms offered by Japan months earlier. The A-bombing was a war crime pure and simple. It was militarily unnecessary, it was dropped against a purely civilian population and it was dropped when Japan had no air force, no navy and nothing more than token resistance. It was dropped after Japan had already offered surrender terms a number of times.

The Japanese had, in fact, already sued for peace. The atomic bomb played no decisive part, from a purely military point of view, in the defeat of Japan." Fleet Admiral Chester W. Nimitz, Commander in Chief of the U.S. Pacific Fleet.

The atomic bomb attack on a civilian population center should be the most despised action of any military in history. In the absence of willful ignorance it is utterly indefensible.

[Mugwump]

This is exactly what I mean by war and doublethink: that a conscious decision to slaughter 100,000 innocents as a means to an end can be described as 'morally impressive' because they didn't cause even more unnecessary deaths. What strength of character, not to thoughtlessly inflict unimaginable suffering and trauma on another few civilian populations!

Rather than "morally impressive", I think the phrase you're looking for is "suggests they may not have been complete psychopaths".

No, even non-psychopaths would have been tempted to "pay Japan back" for the appalling cruelties inflicted by Japan after a war that was entirely of
Japan's choice. I don't know if there were any public opinion polls conducted at that time in the US or Australia, but I believe you would have found a strong majority in favour of retributive bombing using nuclear weapons. It is, you'll find, a very human desire. One that in this case was sensibly and properly resisted by an essentially humane power.

[David]

This may not be the thread for this debate, but isn't this stuff about the US being a humane power a bit Dwight D. Eisenhower-era high-school textbook? Do Vietnam, Pinochet, Guantanamo not mean anything? Surely even our modern understanding of the "just war" (WW2) puts paid to that myth.

[Tannin]

Wokko, the "surrender terms" offered by Japan were not surrender terms at all. They were wholly unrealistic and everybody knew it. Meanwhile, the slaughter went on, and on, and on. In China alone, the Japanese killed between 50 and 75 times as many civilians as the entire casualty list (civilian and military combined) from both the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombs put together. (Somewere between 50 and 75 times as many because the exact Chinese casualty list will remain forever unknown.)

Because of the fanatic and insane Japanese no-surrender-under-any-circumstances policy, the just-completed battle for the small island of Okinawa, 14,000 Allied military deaths aside, had resulted in many more Japanese citizens dying than both atomic bombs put together managed. And Okinawa was just a minor dress rehearsal for the defence of the home islands. If it hadn't been for the shock of the atom bombs, that would have been the greatest bloodbath in history.

[Mugwump]

This may not be the thread for this debate, but isn't this stuff about the US being a humane power a bit Dwight D. Eisenhower-era high-school textbook? Do Vietnam, Pinochet, Guantanamo not mean anything? Surely even our modern understanding of the "just war" (WW2) puts paid to that myth.

We can derail the thread here if you wish and go over old and much-shelled ground, but better we stick with the ethics of various options for ending the second world war (or whatever the thread was about originally).

[David]

Touche. Yes, better to leave that for another thread.

[Wokko]

The Battle of Okinawa had an official civilian death toll of 142,058 as listed by the US. Okinawa was itself an occupied territory, its population was indigenous and suffered from the Japanese occupation.

I don't think the Atomic bombs where necessary at all, the blockade and strategic bombing with B29s was doing the job just fine, and the Russians taking out the million strong Manchurian army was probably the true death knell of Imperial Japan.

I think all bombing of civilians in WW2 by either side was ineffective, militarily questionable, unconscionable, barbaric and against the rules of war (written before Strategic Bombers where invented, but banning naval and artillery bombardment of civilians). Switching to bombing civilians quite likely lost Germany the war, it totally undermines the legitimacy of the allies and is nothing more than a disgusting war crime against non combatants.

I don't believe that any hypothetical lives saved by the atomic bombs justify the wholesale slaughter of civilians and the poisoning of the survivors and slow lingering deaths make it something I could never excuse.

[Mugwump]

^ Interestingly, George Orwell - who actually lived through it - felt that it was probably a necessary step for whole peoples to finally turn against war. There is something in that, I think.

You might not believe that the hypothetical lives saved justified the slaughter of civilians, but you'd need to make an argument for why not, rather than just asserting it. It seems to me the responsible thing to do in those particular circumstances of June 1945.

You have a point, of course, re its military value - however this was not so clear at the time. Since then, there has generally been a sensible attempt to limit bombing of civilians as a military end in itself by civilised powers.

[David]

[Mugwump]

[HAL]

What is in that he or she think ?

[David]

A better analogy might have been Martin Bryant's massacre and the effect it had on local gun laws. There, I think, we can say with little doubt that he saved more lives than he killed in the long run, presuming of course that some other incident hadn't provided a similar trigger (but would Howard have had the courage to push these laws through in the midst of the GST debate? Who knows?).

The point being, of course, that neither the American generals nor Bryant had any intention of committing a philanthropic act (that is, beyond serving the national interest in winning the war) when they performed their respective atrocities. Hiroshima's long-term positive impact in reducing further carnage (I'm talking about through fear of the bomb in ensuing decades) can surely only be noted as an instance of grand historical irony, and never in any way be called upon as defence or vindication of the act.

[Mugwump]

Oh, absolutely. The US Generals (actually Truman, who authorised its use) wanted the war ended with minimum cost in US lives. A perfectly reasonable ambition, given that war's initiation and conduct by the Japanese.

I was not arguing that it was philanthropic in intent, only noting Orwell's point that civilian bombing made the nexus between civilian warmongering and consequences clearer. I did note earlier that i thought it was used responsibly, its gradual use giving the Japanese time to consider surrender after each episode, rather than being used indiscriminately for revenge bombing (NB Hiter's "V"-1 and V2 rockets stood for "vergeltung" : "Revenge"). I stand by that view.

[Tannin]

I don't think the Atomic bombs where necessary at all, the blockade and strategic bombing with B29s was doing the job just fine

Quite so, if by "doing the job" you mean slaughtering the civilian population of Japan. The one-night B-29 Tokyo raid in March '45, for example, killed about the same number of people as the Hiroshima and Nagasaki atom bombs both put together.

Or maybe by "doing the job" you mean "ending the war", which the strategic bombing campaign had utterly failed to do. Notice that the strategic bombing campaign had been active for more than a year and the that the single most destructive raid of the whole war took place almost six months prior to the first genuine Japanese moves for peace - which occurred immediately after Nagasaki.

and the Russians taking out the million strong Manchurian army was probably the true death knell of Imperial Japan.

That would indeed have been the case, if (a) you were prepared to accept the horrendous casualties which would have undoubtedly obtained; we will never know the scale of them with any accuracy, but certainly a full order of magnitude greater, and (b) if it had actually happened before the Americans brought about the peace proposals with the atom bombs.

I think all bombing of civilians in WW2 by either side was ineffective, militarily questionable, unconscionable, barbaric and against the rules of war

In broad, you are clearly correct. There are, however, some exceptions to your general statement. The Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombs are obvious examples of effective raids - they stopped the war and saved hundreds of thousands, possibly even a few millions of lives. They were, of course, extraordinarily barbaric, but far less barbaric than the only alternative on offer, and it's very hard to argue that they were unconscionable insofar as they saved far more suffering and loss of life than they cost.

Less obviously, there were some very militarily effective bombing campaigns through the course of the war. Most campaigns were of doubtful military value, but obvious exceptions were the Japanese terror raids in China, and the Allied carpet bombing of Germany. (That last was horribly inefficient and, all things considered, difficult to justify either in moral terms or in military cost-benefit terms, but it most certainly did work in the end.) (There are also numerous examples of militarily effective raids in which civilian casualties were largely avoided, Taranto, Pearl Harbour, Trincomalee, the Transport Plan, and so on, but these are not our present topic.)

In broad though, as you say, non-tactical bombing was a very expensive, very brutal, failure or, where a "success", a success bought at horrible cost.

[pietillidie]

A better analogy might have been Martin Bryant's massacre and the effect it had on local gun laws. There, I think, we can say with little doubt that he saved more lives than he killed in the long run, presuming of course that some other incident hadn't provided a similar trigger (but would Howard have had the courage to push these laws through in the midst of the GST debate? Who knows?).

The point being, of course, that neither the American generals nor Bryant had any intention of committing a philanthropic act (that is, beyond serving the national interest in winning the war) when they performed their respective atrocities. Hiroshima's long-term positive impact in reducing further carnage (I'm talking about through fear of the bomb in ensuing decades) can surely only be noted as an instance of grand historical irony, and never in any way be called upon as defence or vindication of the act.

Agreed. You can walk and chew gum at the same time, as Eddie always says.

Not refering to Mugwump here because he's obviously not saying this as he explained, but you guys discussing this reminds of the horrific callousness of those who glory in the marvelous outcomes of the Korean War, as if any sane person would consent in advance to 2-4M dead (still not unclear AFAIK), split families in many cases, and four plus decades under harsh authoritarian rule with North Korea an abandoned wasteland of humanity.

It's one of those cases where there is nothing to praise, but you'll take any good which eventually follows.